User talk:Versatile29

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello! and welcome to Wikipedia! New to Wikipedia? Introduction if you aren't then please read Privacy Policy and About Wikipedia! Please enjoy your day and happy editing! Beyonder (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Tao (entertainer)

Please read the message I left on User talk:CaPoRt#Tao (entertainer), as this concerns your account and edits to Tao's article. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 04:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still edit warring

You are still edit warring in Tao (entertainer). I've already explained that you must discuss your disagreements on the talk page before making any changes. This is your absolute final warning. Any further disruption and you will be blocked. — ξ ^xplicit 02:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for suspected meatpuppetry in order to aid User:CaPoRt in his dispute on Tao (entertainer). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — ξ ^xplicit 01:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Explicit

Hi Explicit

I feel I need to reiterate, absolutely don't know Carport, and never interacted with that person, I just happen to think that editor's contributions were right I only reverted the edits that mattered to me and thought were useful for the page,and they happened to be from that same person. I used undo since I'm new and it was the easiest thing to do. My decision to edit the page was my own.

This is what happened. I added 2 articles about Tao entertainer quoted as being one of the most beautiful in the world, one from Sohu, and One from Oddyssey online.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706064101&oldid=706063774

To which she countered that a new section was not needed for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706065273&oldid=706064691

So I took her advice into consideration and removed the large section

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706067564&oldid=706065564

Removed the oddyssey online article only leaving Sohu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706197252&oldid=706195261

But yet again she deleted my Sohu article, by saying that it was from the Odyssey online not Sohu and Oddyssey online was not a good enough source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706402681&oldid=706363488

I thought maybe it was an honest mistake and Ztaobb didn't go through what I wrote and didn't realize I had removed the part about Oddyssey online, and left her a message on her own talk page to point out the mistake.

Along with the diff to show that I had already removed the Odyssey online article and agreed with her and only left the Sohu one. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706460196&oldid=706433864 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ztaobb

Ztaobb yet again deleted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_(entertainer)&diff=706639872&oldid=706460196

Then Ztaobb finally says that the reason that list from Sohu edit removed ,is that their subsidiary entertainment gossip program spread false rumors that were circulating about Tao before. Sohu is a big internet company, one of the biggest in China,It's like someone boycotting all sources and articles coming from Google. The 50 beautiful list is an honor like People's sexiest list, it's serious, completely separate from their entertainment gossip show.

I think the 3RR rule was violated by Ztaobb when she reverted my edits as you can see above, so I thought about sending a report on the administrator noticeboard, however I didn't feel it would solve the bigger problem.

I reviewed the Tao page history before registering, Tao is gaining a lot of fans therefore, a lot more people are using the Wikipedia page and noticing changes or things missing, and asking/ranting about it. I wanted to know what happened, after going through the history I noticed a pattern, all related to Ztaobb, after reviewing Ztaobb history, I was suspicious that Ztaobb might be doing tendentious editing, and/or vandalism deceptively. This is the true reason why I originally registered and sent the long letter in the talk page and disputed her edits. It had nothing to do with Carport, after going through history, I tried talking about the suspicious edits with Ztaobb first.I'm just the type of person that gets involved and try to fix the situation when I feel something is not right.

After we resolved disputes in the talk, I was hopeful that Ztaobb disruptive behavior would stop, gave the benefit of the doubt, maybe I was wrong, but nothing changed,so I decided to dig deeper, continue to read about vandalism, tendentious editing and what to do to resolve issue etc... I was not sure if my complaints were valid somethings might seem trivial and the diffs maybe not recent enough, so I decided to review wiki's guidelines, and page history carefully again to be sure I take the right course of action and not make false accusations. I was literally debating my options and building a case, it sounds melodramatic but it's true.

But then before I could decide anything:

I saw that Carport reverted my edit, and because you accused of me colluding with Carport, in the last edit war, I thought I would not be taken seriously if I sent my request to the admin noticeboard to complain about Ztaobb's behavior, I thought there will be more misunderstandings, so I waited uncertain about what action to take.

But Ztaobb reverted again, and I got a warning for edit warring despite me not doing anything, leaving me even more confused on what to do.

Then I see that Ninoshka reverted the edit too and it escalated quickly until I'm now indefinitely blocked! I honestly, truly, have nothing to do with any of it! I didn't ask them to revert my edits.

And now after claiming to want to completely remove Sohu's mention from Tao's wiki because of the false rumors and information, Look what Ztaobb just added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=707319454&oldid=707291511

With this, Ztaobb just prove what I was thinking when I when trough the edits and history. That person under the guise of editing Tao's page is actually being disruptive, undermine Tao's achievements, and trying to vandalize the page in a deceptive way and trying to turn away any other serious editors from contributing to the page.

I'm the one that asked for the page to be protected after I noticed some IP vandalism/warring and their suspicious timing while going through the history, I asked for the page to be protected indefinitely but it was only protected for a week. I really took your previous warning seriously and decided to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's rules before taking any action.

I am serious about being and editor of Tao's page and other artist I like pages. Wikipedia is always my go to to get more info on everything I'm curious about,I love to write, I truly will not engage in edit warring or meatpuppetry any behavior that contradicts Wikipedia's rules.

I hope you reconsider.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Versatile29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False accusation Versatile29 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we don't permit obvious meatpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.